New Hampshire senate committee takes no action on igaming
On February 5th, New Hampshire’s Senate Ways and Means Committee convened to evaluate the potential of a legal iGaming bill. However, after minimal discussion and with only two witnesses present, the committee opted not to cast a vote on the matter.
Nevertheless, the committee did advance Senate Bill 60, which pertains to advance deposit wagering. This legislation aims to establish a regulated framework for pari-mutuel wagering overseen by the New Hampshire Lottery.
In parallel, Senate Bill 168 proposes the legalization of online casino gaming (iCasino), a step towards modernizing the state’s gaming landscape. This legislation permits platforms to be associated with existing brick-and-mortar gaming establishments, allowing each physical casino to operate one digital “skin.” According to the bill’s sponsor, Senator Tim Lang, online gaming would face taxation and regulation identical to that governing New Hampshire’s current terrestrial gaming operations.
Lang forecasts that the introduction of online gaming could generate approximately $39 million in tax revenue for the state—this translates to approximately £31.1 million or €37.4 million. In response to feedback, Lang introduced an amendment to ensure charitable gaming was included in the bill, which received approval.
This represents Lang’s second attempt to bring a legal iGaming bill before the General Court. He emphasized that the inclusion of tethering—connecting digital gaming to physical casinos—distinguishes this effort from previous iterations.
Concerns Regarding Charitable Gaming
During the public hearing concerning the iGaming proposal, both witnesses expressed opposition. Alicia Preston, representing the New Hampshire Charitable Gaming Association, articulated concerns that the bill could detract foot traffic from physical locations. “Brick-and-mortar establishments have invested significant resources into developing their businesses,” she stated. “While tethering online operations may offer some financial relief, it ultimately risks diminishing patronage.”
Preston cautioned that the associated food-and-beverage sectors would also feel adverse effects, as decreased visitor numbers would translate into reduced spending on ancillary services. She acknowledged that while online gambling could yield benefits for charitable organizations, her apprehension lies in potential job losses and detrimental impacts on local economies.
The Need for Enhanced Problem Gambling Funding
The second witness, Brianne Doura-Schawohl, a recognized advocate for responsible gambling and a representative of the Campaign for Fairer Gambling, raised critical issues regarding gambling addiction. She asserted that the advent of online gambling might exacerbate addiction rates within New Hampshire.
Doura-Schawohl criticized state lawmakers for insufficient funding allocated to problem gambling initiatives, noting that New Hampshire ranks an alarming 39th out of 43 states with legal gambling markets in terms of financial support for these programs. Currently, New Hampshire dedicates $100,000 annually for addiction services, a stark contrast to the $22 million allocated in neighboring Massachusetts, which has a population five times greater. To align with Massachusetts standards, New Hampshire would need to commit approximately $4.4 million to responsible gambling efforts. Presently, the state’s per capita earmark falls below 10 cents, compared to the national average of 45 cents.
As New Hampshire’s legislative session extends until June 30, committee chairman Lang anticipates further discussions and a vote on the proposed bills in the coming week. Stakeholders across the state are watching closely as the narrative surrounding online gambling continues to evolve.
